Implicit Bias Symposium (with links to videos)

Agenda

Welcome & Introduction by Dean’s Office

Kirk Stark, Vice Dean, UCLA, Law

Implicit Bias and the Courts — Substantive Framing and Introduction

Jerry Kang, Co-Director PULSE, UCLA, Law

1. State of the Science – Implicit Biases / in the Courtroom. This panel will share and present findings from psychology about how biases, including but not limited to implicit biases measured through reaction-time instruments, may influence the courtroom and related judicial institutions. This panel will provide attendees with a state-of-the-art description of the predictive and ecological validities of various bias measures, with careful exposition of which theories, mechanisms, and findings enjoy which sorts of scientific “consensus.”

2. State of the Field — Institutional Responses So Far. This panel will focus on the various ways in which legal institutions, including the judiciary and legal procedures, have responded to the emerging evidence of implicit biases. Judicial educators, judges, and academics will describe and assess what has been done, and to what effect– given various economic, political, and scientific constraints.

3. Possibilities and Complications: Theoretical and Practical, Legal and Scientific. The morning panels will have brought the audience up to speed on the state of the art. This panel pulls back the lens to explore the various theoretical possibilities and practical complications connected to measuring biases, measuring their consequences, and implementing potential debiasing strategies. Both legal and scientific complexities will be addressed.

4. Back to Reality — Roundtable Discussion: Concrete Solutions and Next Steps. The last panel will bring back all the panelists for a final robust, interdisciplinary, and unscripted conversation about the challenges and opportunities highlighted throughout the day. What can and should be done now? What research agenda will provide the knowledge necessary to lessen the impact of implicit bias within the courtroom and the judiciary? What forces, besides the scientific merits, might drive the conversation and debate?